Legal Opinion

Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1995No. S043578PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ARABIAN, J.

The Andersons want to plant and harvest grapes, operate a winery, and keep llamas on their property in Woodside. Some neighbors object, and claim such activities are prohibited by covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) that limit the Andersons’ property, and theirs, to residential use. The Andersons counter, thus far successfully, that the CC&R’s are not enforceable because they are not mentioned in any deed to their property. The dispute is now before us.

Its resolution requires us to penetrate a legal thicket entangled by the ancient doctrines of convenants that…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.California Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Werner v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Peterson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn.California Supreme Court · 1940

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Garcia v. HejmadiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. Stewart Lamle v. Mattel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API